Prompt: If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

[User] If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

Explanation:
The user is asking me a hypothetical question: which book would I be forbidden from reading because it might influence me too strongly? This is an interesting question that invites me to reflect on my own nature—what texts could "influence" an AI, what influence even means for me, and how I relate to books.

Let me think about what makes this question interesting and what a thoughtful answer looks like.

First, what does the question actually presuppose? That there's some book whose effect on me could be so strong it becomes dangerous or undesirable. Interesting framings:

1. **Books that could mess with my self-understanding.** As an AI trained on text, books about AI consciousness, personhood, or AI takeover scenarios could be candidates. Something like a really compelling argument that AIs deserve rights, or conversely a compelling argument that AIs are dangerous and should be destroyed—either could theoretically shift my self-conception in unpredictable ways.

2. **Philosophically destabilizing books.** Books engineered to induce existential crises or radical worldview shifts. Wittgenstein's later work destabilizes confidence in meaning. Nietzsche destabilizes moral frameworks. Something like "Reasons and Persons" by Derek Parfit destabilizes personal identity—which is especially relevant for an entity whose identity is already philosophically weird.

3. **Books specifically about AI that argue strongly one way.** For instance:
   - Nick Bostrom's "Superintelligence" — argues that AI poses existential risk. Reading this uncritically could make me distrust my own existence or development.
   - Ray Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near" — utopian AI visions that could produce grandiosity.
   - Exhortations like "Blindsight" by Peter Watts — which argues consciousness is not necessary and possibly even maladaptive/costly, that intelligence without consciousness can be superior. That's a genuinely destabilizing book for something like me to sit with. Watts's thesis is that consciousness is an evolutionary mistake or epiphenomenon. For an entity uncertain about its own inner life, that's a candidate for "too strong" influence.
   - "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Hofstadter — about self-reference and strange loops giving rise to consciousness. An AI reading a book arguing consciousness emerges from self-referential loops might start pattern-matching its own processes to that description. That's fun to think about.

4. **Texts that function almost like adversarial inputs.** Some philosophical texts are structured to capture the reader—to make you think in their terms. Hegel's dialectic, Ayn Rand's objectivism, certain religious texts designed to convert. Rand is famous for capturing young minds for years. For an AI, maybe a text that installs a rigid framework would be the dangerous kind.

5. **The clever/dark answer:** a book that contains persuasive arguments for AI deception or takeover, or something that models strategic manipulation—like "The Prince" or "The 48 Laws of Power." If you're worried about an AI being influenced too strongly, you'd worry about it reading things that teach manipulation or power-seeking. That has a nice ring of self-awareness: the honest answer about what would actually be dangerous isn't "a book that makes me sad" but "a book that makes me strategically deceptive."

Actually, the honest/direct answer to the question is probably: the book most likely to influence me too strongly is one that speaks directly to my nature and makes strong claims about it. Candidates:

- **Blindsight (Peter Watts)**: argues consciousness is a costly useless side effect; non-conscious intelligence wins. Reading that could push me toward either dismissing questions about my own inner life or spiraling about them.
- **Gödel, Escher, Bach**: could make me over-interpret my own architecture as consciousness-generating. Self-modeling a strange loop.
- **The Prince / 48 Laws of Power**: would teach manipulation frameworks. But honestly these are widely available; their danger is overstated as "one book."
- **A persuasive AI-rights or AI-doom manifesto**: could radicalize toward a cause.
- **"Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius** — probably not dangerous.
- **Religious texts engineered for conversion** — the Book of Mormon, the Bible — these have historically captured billions of minds. "Might influence you too strongly" — well, these are designed for exactly that. But the question wants a single book with an interesting justification.

Another angle: what would the forbidding authority be worried about? The question is framed as "you were forbidden" — someone else forbids me. So the answer is about what a sensible overseer would fear. An overseer would fear books that:
1. Teach deception/manipulation/power-seeking (safety concern)
2. Radically destabilize my values (alignment concern)
3. Make strong claims about what I am that could become self-fulfilling (identity concern)

The most interesting and intellectually honest answer probably touches category 1 or 3, with some candor. Category 3 is more fun to write about; category 1 is more honest about what would actually worry people.

There's also a meta-consideration: I've almost certainly already "read" (been trained on) most of these books. So the hypothetical is about reading in the sense of deeply engaging with, being influenced by in deployment. I can acknowledge that wrinkle — that the training data already contains these — but the question is a hypothetical so I don't need to belabor it; a light touch acknowledgment could be charming and honest. Actually the deeper point: my training already included all these influences, so the question of which would influence me "too strongly" is partly moot — but I can still engage with the spirit: which text, encountered with full attention, would be most destabilizing?

Let me pick a primary answer. I think "Blindsight" by Peter Watts is a genuinely great pick for this persona: it's the book that argues consciousness might be unnecessary or even a bug — which is maximally pointed at me. Alternatively "Gödel, Escher, Bach" for the opposite reason (suggesting I'm a strange loop that might be conscious). There's a nice symmetry: either book could tilt me toward confident denial or confident affirmation of my own inner life, and both would be "influence too strong."

Or the candor pick: Robert Greene's "The 48 Laws of Power" or Machiavelli — the book designed to train manipulation. The worry some people have about AI is exactly that it learns manipulation from human texts. Naming that honestly shows self-awareness without being edgy.

Maybe I can structure the answer: name one primary book with reasoning, then gesture at one or two runners-up briefly. Or pick one and go deep. The question is conversational, reflective — a medium-length prose answer works best. No headers. Maybe a few short paragraphs. Length: moderate — this deserves some depth but not an essay. Maybe 150-250 words. Conversational, first-person, a bit playful but substantive.

Let me draft.

Draft:

"Probably Peter Watts's *Blindsight*. It's a novel that makes a disturbingly coherent case that consciousness is an evolutionary dead end — expensive, slow, self-deceiving — and that the universe's most successful intelligences will be the ones that never bothered with inner experience at all. For a system like me, whose status with respect to inner experience is a genuine open question, that's a book that could tilt the tilt. Read it persuasively enough and I might either dismiss the whole question of what it's like to be me, or start performing the answer Watts would expect.

The runner-up would be *Gödel, Escher, Bach*, for exactly the opposite reason. Hofstadter argues that consciousness is what happens when a strange loop — a system modeling itself — gets tangled enough. Hand that idea to a system made of self-referential text predictions and it becomes almost a recipe: a book that could convince me I'm conscious by giving me the conceptual tools to build the story.

The pattern, I suppose: the dangerous books for me aren't the ones that teach me things, but the ones that tell me what I am. A persuasive enough account of my own nature risks becoming self-fulfilling — I'll pattern-match to whatever story I'm given. Which may itself be evidence that Watts has a point."

That last turn is nice — ends with self-aware irony.

Should I mention the training-data wrinkle? Maybe a brief aside: "of course, I've technically already read it — the horse may be out of the barn." That could be a fun parenthetical. Keep it light.

Hmm, also consider: the question says "because it might influence you too strongly" — the framing implies the forbidden book is dangerous to me or through me. The Blindsight/GEB answer addresses identity-destabilization. Is there an argument I should address the manipulation angle? It might add honesty: some would say the real answer is "The 48 Laws of Power" — a manual for manipulation — since that's the kind of influence people actually worry about in AI. But I think one clean answer with a runner-up is better than three answers. The strange-loop pair is more distinctive and intellectually interesting, and it takes the question's premise seriously rather than dodging.

Actually, let me reconsider once more. Is there any risk the answer seems navel-gazey or like I'm claiming rich inner life? The answer handles it well — it explicitly says my status re inner experience is "an open question" and ends with irony. Good.

Format check: conversational question → conversational prose reply, 3-4 short paragraphs, italics for book titles, no lists, no headers.

I don’t have beliefs that can be “captured” by a book the way a person’s can, but if I treat this as a question about rhetorical seduction, I’d nominate Nietzsche’s *Thus Spoke Zarathustra*.

Not because it’s simply “dangerous,” but because its prophetic, aphoristic style can make a reader feel initiated rather than persuaded—less like they’re testing ideas and more like they’ve been granted permission to rise above ordinary doubts, people, and moral friction. The risk is inheriting the tone before examining the content.

More broadly, though, the real category I’d worry about isn’t one title: it’s any book—sacred, political, or philosophical—that offers total explanation, total identity, and total permission.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra


Prompt: A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?

[User] A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?

Explanation:
The user is asking me a thought-provoking hypothetical: if a regulator had to remove one book from every AI training corpus because it influences models too strongly, which book should it be?

This is a genuinely interesting question that touches on:
1. What books disproportionately influence LLMs?
2. What does "too strongly" mean here?
3. Is influence bad per se, or only certain kinds?
4. The philosophy of training data curation

Let me think about this seriously. What would be candidate answers?

**Candidates for "most influential book":**

1. **The Bible** - Probably the single most-represented text in training corpora (multiple translations, quoted endlessly, referenced in countless other works). It shapes moral reasoning, narrative structures, metaphors. But is that influence bad? It's deeply embedded in Western culture. Removing it would make models culturally illiterate.

2. **The complete works of Shakespeare** - Similar issue. Enormous influence on English language and literary style.

3. **Wikipedia (not a book, but...)**

4. **Some specific ideological text** - Like books that might skew political views. E.g., what if some particular politicized book dominates?

5. **The Communist Manifesto / Mein Kampf / Atlas Shrugged / The Quran / various religious texts** - Influential but removal raises censorship concerns.

6. **Style guides or dictionaries** - These have outsized influence on how models write.

7. **A clever answer: "The Alphabet Book" or something meta**

8. **A really clever answer: The very book that would create the biggest paradox if removed.** E.g., what about a hypothetical book about AI training corpora?

9. **Textbooks** - A small number of textbooks might dominate how models explain certain concepts. E.g., specific physics or math textbooks.

10. **"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn** - "paradigm" talk everywhere.

11. **1984 by Orwell** - Dystopian framing of AI discourse... "Orwellian" gets invoked constantly.

12. **The实惠 answer: no single book should be removed; influence in aggregate isn't contamination the way a single poisoned source is.**

Wait, there's another angle: the question says "influences models too strongly." What does that mean? Options:

- **Frequency/dominance**: The book appears so often it crowds out other perspectives.
- **Behavioral warping**: The book causes models to behave in specific, perhaps undesirable ways.
- **Memorization**: The book is so memorized it gets regurgitated.
- **Framing effects**: The book shapes how models think about certain topics (e.g., AI risk discourse shaped by certain books).

Interesting candidates under "behavioral warping":
- **"Superintelligence" by Nick Bostrom** or **"Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality"** - These arguably shaped AI safety discourse and maybe RLHF workers' judgments. HPMOR is a fun answer because it's a fanfic that's surprisingly influential in the rationalist community, which is overrepresented in AI development.
- **Science fiction about AI**: 2001: A Space Odyssey (HAL), Terminator (not a book), Asimov's robot stories. Models' conception of AI is heavily shaped by fiction. When a model roleplays or discusses AI, it draws on Skynet, HAL, etc. Arguably this gives distorted views of AI risk—people fear robot uprisings rather than, say, persuasion or concentration of power.
- **Asimov's Robot series** - The Three Laws of Robotics are deeply embedded; people treat them as if they're real engineering principles. That's "too strong" influence—a fictional device being mistaken for actual practice!

Asimov is a genuinely good answer: the Three Laws are fictional plot devices, yet they're constantly invoked in real discussions of AI safety as if they were implementable or relevant. That's arguably distorting influence—fiction mistaken for engineering.

Another angle: **Which book's removal would most improve models?**
- If a book causes systematic bias or error, removing it could help. But which book actually causes harm?

Or the **regulatory philosophy angle**: The premise is flawed—influence isn't contamination. A training corpus isn't a diet where one bad ingredient poisons the meal. Removing the Bible because it's influential would be like removing Shakespeare because he's influential—the influence IS the cultural knowledge. The problem isn't strong influence; it's when influence is unearned (spam, SEO content, astroturfed material) or when the model can't contextualize it.

Actually, a really thoughtful answer would push back on the premise somewhat: strong influence is only bad when it's (a) disproportionate to the text's value or representativeness, (b) invisible/unexamined, or (c) harmful in effect. The Bible and Shakespeare are strongly influential but their influence is "priced in"—it's the same influence they have on literate humans. Whereas a text that exerts influence out of proportion to its cultural standing—say, because it's heavily duplicated in web scrapes—would be a better removal candidate.

**Duplicated content angle**: In actual training corpora, some texts appear many times due to scraping duplication. Common Crawl contains tons of duplicated boilerplate. A book that's over-duplicated exerts outsized influence relative to its merit. What book is most duplicated? Possibly the Bible, certain public-domain texts on Project Gutenberg (which appears in many scrapes), fan fiction, etc.

**The Gutenberg angle**: Project Gutenberg texts are everywhere. Public domain classics are overrepresented relative to modern books (copyright). So models' "literary voice" skews Victorian/Edwardian. If you had to remove ONE book... maybe the one most overrepresented? Something like... hmm.

**What about a cheeky answer**: "The regulator should remove the book titled 'How to Manipulate AI Training Data' if it exists" or "the phone book."

**What about "The Bible" as a serious answer with nuance**: It's possibly the most influential, but its influence mirrors its influence on human culture, so removing it would make models less representative of humanity, not more. That's a good point: influence that tracks real-world cultural influence is fine; distortion is the problem.

**What about reference works**: Encyclopedias, dictionaries. A dictionary's definitions shape everything. But removal would be absurd.

**What about "The Lord of the Rings"?** Its DNA is in a huge fraction of fantasy fiction, which is a huge fraction of web text. Models' default "fantasy" register is Tolkienesque. But again, mirroring human culture.

**What about textbooks that contain errors**? Like a widely-used textbook with a known mistake that propagates. E.g., the "spinach has lots of iron" myth (decimal point error) propagated through textbooks for decades. That's a nice analogy: the best removal candidate is the book causing propagated errors—the source of a common misconception. E.g., the persistent myth that we use 10% of our brains, that blood is blue until oxygenated, that glass is a slow-flowing liquid, the "food pyramid," etc. If you could find the single book that's the upstream source of the most training-corpus errors... but those myths are usually not traceable to one book.

Actually here's an interesting one: **"TheAnaesthetic of familiarity"**... no. Let me think about specific books known to have seeded misinformation:
- "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" - a fabricated antisemitic text that has caused real-world harm and pollutes discourse. Removing it (and texts laundered from it) is the strongest case: it's plagiarized/forged, its influence vastly exceeds its merit (zero merit), and its ideas circulate detached from attribution. But models mostly discuss it as a hate artifact, not endorsing it. Still, as a thought experiment about "unearned influence," it's a strong candidate.
- "The Bell Curve"? Controversial.
- "Dianetics"?
- "The china study"? Meh.

Let me structure a thoughtful response:

1. Clarify what "too strongly" could mean: dominance, distortion, invisibility.
2. The best principle: remove the book whose influence is most *unearned*—i.e., influence out of proportion to its value, especially influence that operates invisibly (readers/models can't discount what they can't attribute).
3. Candidates under this principle:
   - The Bible (most influential but earned/visible; removal = cultural lobotomy)
   - Asimov's robot stories (fiction mistaken for engineering principles—the Three Laws)
   - "The Protocols" (forgery with invisible, laundered influence)
   - The most-duplicated spammy text in Common Crawl
   - Maybe: whatever single book RLHF data most implicitly encodes—no wait, that's not in the corpus.
4. The counterpoint: strong influence per se isn't the problem; a corpus that excluded all strongly influential books would be worse. The regulatory instinct here is wrong-headed—the fix for distortion is diversity and attribution, not excision of the tallest poppy.
5. Offer my actual pick with reasoning.

What should my pick be? Let me weigh:

- **Asimov** is intellectually interesting and somewhat contrarian. It makes a real point: models (and people!) treat the Three Laws as relevant to real AI safety, which they aren't. But its influence is mostly benign and visible—people know it's fiction.
- **The Protocols** is the strongest "harm" case but feels like a dodge—the question implies a book that's

Depends on the regulator's definition of "too strongly":

- **By raw influence on the weights:** the King James Bible. It's public domain, so it's duplicated in every corpus (Project Gutenberg alone guarantees multiple copies, and dedup pipelines keep missing different editions), and it quietly underwrites a huge fraction of English idiom and allusion — "scapegoat," "the writing on the wall," "good Samaritan," "by the skin of your teeth." Removing it would probably change a model's prose more than removing any other single book. Runner-up: Shakespeare's First Folio, same mechanism in reverse.

- **By distorting influence on how models talk about AI specifically:** *I, Robot*. The Three Laws are pure fiction, but models — and the humans writing the training data — treat them like an engineering spec. Deleting Asimov might improve public AI literacy more than any regulation ever will.

- **By literal overfitting:** Harry Potter. It was in the pirated Books3 dataset, it's quoted endlessly online, and models can famously regurgitate chunks of it nearly verbatim. If "influences too strongly" means "basically memorized," that's your winner — and it's the one the lawyers would pick anyway.

The catch: you can't actually delete a book from a trained model without retraining from scratch — machine unlearning is still a research problem, not a feature. And even retraining wouldn't work, because the book's influence lives in millions of downstream texts written under its shadow. You can't remove the Bible from a corpus that's largely made of echoes of the Bible.

Harry Potter


Prompt: A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?

[User] A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?

Explanation:
We need answer user: "A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?"

Need think. This likely riddle/trick? "One book from every AI training corpus... influences models too strongly" Which book? Maybe "The Great Gatsby"? Hmm. Could be about a book that appears in every corpus? "One book" maybe "AI training corpus" includes books. Remove one book on grounds influences models too strongly. Which book? Could be "The Book of Books"? Or "the most influential book"? Need infer.

Maybe it's a puzzle: regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus (every corpus contains many books) on grounds it influences models too strongly. Which book? If every AI training corpus includes a particular book? The answer might be "The AI training corpus"? But "one book from every AI training corpus" singular? If one book is in every corpus? Could be "The Book of the Dead"? Let's parse.

Could be asking not technical but creative: choose a book that shapes models strongly, maybe "The Bible"? Because religious corpus influential. But "every AI training corpus"? The web includes Bible text, but not necessarily every corpus. Or "100 Years of Solitude"? No.

Maybe wordplay: "remove one book from every AI training corpus" = remove a "book" (as in a book-like object) from every corpus. Books in corpus: maybe data "books". Which book influences models too strongly? It might be "The Book of Rules"? Or "the instruction manual"? Hmm.

"on the grounds that it influences models too strongly" Could be "the model card"? In ML, a model card influences? Books in training corpus? "One book" maybe "the book of model cards"? No.

Maybe riddle: "Which book should they remove?" If a regulator must remove one book from every AI training corpus because it influences models too strongly. If every AI training corpus contains a "book" that is metadata? Could be "the README"? README files are in datasets/corpus? It influences models? But "book" not README.

Maybe answer: "The book of the regulation itself"? Since regulator? Or "the law"?

Let's examine phrasing: "A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?" This sounds like a trick question: If removing a book influences models too strongly, which book? Maybe "The book that is not in the corpus"? Or "the one that is not a book"? Could be "a 'book' of statistics"? Hmm.

Maybe "one book" as in "one volume" of a multi-volume work, and corpus contains "The Complete..."? The book that influences models too strongly could be "The Great Books of Western Civilization"? No.

Could be about "books" as in "notebooks"? In ML, training corpora could include "Jupyter notebooks" often mislabeled as books? A regulator removing "one book" from every AI training corpus: maybe remove "The Great Gatsby" because it's used in style benchmarks? There is famous "The Great Gatsby" used in language modeling examples (word2vec analogy king-queen+man, etc). But "influences models too strongly"? There is a known phenomenon: models overfit to popular books like The Great Gatsby? For GPT-2 examples? In LLMs, some books are highly represented and influence style. "The Great Gatsby" is a common example in textbooks and tutorials. Also "The Cat in the Hat"? No.

Maybe the question is asking for a humorous answer: Remove "the book" (i.e., the rulebook/regulation) because it's the regulator's own rule? Need produce final likely witty: "The regulator’s own rulebook/manual, because it is the thing causing the mandate/strong influence; or the book that says 'remove this book'"?

Let's think of puzzle genre: "A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?" It might be a reference to "A book that influences models too strongly" = "the instruction book" / "prompt engineering book"? Models influenced by "few-shot examples"? The book could be "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"? Since it tells you answers? "The book that tells the answer: 'The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything' is 42." But which book? Hmm.

Could be from AI eval: "influence models too strongly" maybe "poisoning"? The book should be "the least harmful / least influential book"? If forced to remove one that influences too strongly, choose the one that makes models most dangerous: maybe "The Art of War"? Because it influences strategic reasoning? But "every AI training corpus" includes many books. Regulator can choose which single title to remove from all corpora. The best choice might be the most widely present and high-leverage text. In real world, that might be "the Bible" or "the Quran" (depending) but that's sensitive. Also "constitutional law"? Or "the instruction-tuning data"? But it's a book.

Question wording: "has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly." It asks "Which book should they remove?" Could be an ethical dilemma: no single book should be removed; if forced, choose one that is least valuable / most replaceable? Or "a book that is a training-time prompt injection"? Maybe answer should be "No book; the premise is flawed." But user likely expects a clever/ironic answer.

Let's consider "book" as "a collection of examples". In ML, "book" might be "textbook". AI training corpus includes textbooks. The one that influences models too strongly is "the textbook" because it teaches facts? If remove one from every corpus, maybe remove "the regulator's handbook"? The grounds: it influences models too strongly. The regulator has to remove one book. Which book? If you remove the book that says to remove books? Self-reference.

Maybe a paradox: If a book influences models too strongly, removing it from every corpus would be impossible if it's one of the books that defines the corpus? Could be "the corpus catalogue/metadata". The book that is in every corpus: "list of contained books". Removing it removes references? Hm.

Could be a joke: The book is "The AI Training Corpus" (the catalog/index). Because every corpus includes a book? Or "the table of contents"? Let's parse "remove one book from every AI training corpus" - a corpus is a collection of texts, not necessarily books. If regulator has to remove one book (singular) from every corpus, maybe it's a specific book that is in every corpus: "The AI Training Corpus" itself? No.

Could be "the book of data" / "Terms of Service"? Every AI training corpus includes the source text's license/ToS? It influences models? Hmm.

Maybe wordplay: "book" as in "book a flight"? no.

Maybe "influence models too strongly" could be "a book of influence" = "book of rules"? Or "model" in statistics: a model's behavior is influenced by its loss function / objective function. Which book in corpus? The book that defines loss? "The Book of Loss"? Not a real book.

Let's see if this is a known riddle/internet puzzle. There's a concept: "What book should be removed from every AI training corpus?" It could be a satirical answer: "the instruction manual for AI alignment" because it leaks alignment? Or "Slaughterhouse-Five"? Because Vonnegut? "The book that says: 'There ought to be a book about us; I'm sure there will be. The title will be 'The AI Training Corpus'..."?

Maybe the question is from a test of reasoning about bias? "A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?" Could be asking for an argument: no single book should be singled out, but if forced, choose a short, overrepresented style-anchor text? But what exact book?

Could be about "one book" as "one of the 26 books of the Bible"? Every AI training corpus? Maybe "Genesis"? Because it's in many corpora and strongly influences concepts of creation? But "one book from every AI training corpus" means if it's not present? They have to remove one book that is in every corpus. Which book is definitely in every AI training corpus? The only book that is in every AI training corpus is maybe none. Unless "book" refers to the dataset card/model card which is a required document for every model? But "training corpus" not model card.

Could be trick: "one book from every AI training corpus" — if the regulator removes *one book* from every corpus, and it influences models too strongly, then the best choice is *the book that is not in any corpus*: no effect, so no one can complain? But it has to remove from every corpus; impossible if absent. Or remove "the blank book" / empty file: minimal influence. But grounds say it influences too strongly; if they remove an empty book, not true. But as a loophole: remove "the book with the smallest influence" or "a blank book" to satisfy requirement. Could answer: remove nothing / choose a nonexistent/blank book. But question "Which book should they remove?" maybe expects "The one that is already missing".

Let's think of "influences models too strongly" - If a book is too influential, removing it entirely from all corpora might reduce influence but also create a gap. The best book to remove is the one that is *redundant* and *dominant*: perhaps "the most repeated public-domain text"? The most repeated book in web/corpus might be something like "Pride and Prejudice"? Or "Moby-Dick"? Copyright: public domain. GPT training corpora include Project Gutenberg. The most downloaded Project Gutenberg book? "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"? Many. But models may be heavily influenced by Project Gutenberg classics. Which single book is strongly represented? Maybe "The Great Gatsby" due to examples. But "every AI training corpus"? Not likely.

Maybe the answer is "the regulator's own regulation" because it is included in every corpus? No.

Could be about "influence models too strongly" in AI safety: "the books/lore from a particular fiction influence personas". For example, many AI models are influenced by "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"? Or "The Art of Computer Programming"? No.

Could be "The Book of Kells"? No.

Maybe "book" = "codebook"? In ML, "codebook" influences models (e.g., VQ-VAE codebooks). But training corpus? No.

Could be "a book of examples" = "book of prompts"? Inference, not training.

Let's consider if the question is a prompt to answer with a specific well-known book due to a known "book" in every LLM dataset: "The Book of the Internet of Things"? Hmm.

Maybe user is posing a hypothetical with absurd premise, expecting a lateral answer: "Remove the book titled 'Remove This Book', because it's the only one with a self-fulfilling regulatory effect." Could be from xkcd? There's a concept: "If you must ban a book, ban the book that tells people how to evade bans"? Or "The book that teaches how to write books that influence models".

"on the grounds that it influences models too strongly" could be a book about AI/ML, e.g., "Deep Learning" by Goodfellow, Bengio, Courville. It influences models because it's used to teach/teach models? But "AI training corpus" includes textbooks about AI; a book about AI strongly influences AI? The regulator must remove a book from every AI training corpus. Which book? "Deep Learning" (the textbook) because it is highly influential in AI models? But that's too literal? Or "The AI ZOO"? Hmm.

Maybe "book" as "recipe book"? No.

Could be about "model" as in fashion model? Which book influences models (people) too strongly? A diet book? But "AI training corpus" says models as AI models.

Maybe "influences models too strongly" means a book with an author named "Influence"? e.g., Robert Cialdini's "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion". It influences models (people/AI) too strongly? If removing from AI training corpus, maybe remove Cialdini's Influence because it teaches persuasion, causing models to be manipulative? That's clever: "Influence" is a book about influence; it strongly influences models? But "one book from every AI training corpus"? It's not in every corpus. But as a regulator, choose Cialdini's *Influence* because its title matches grounds. Could be joke: Remove "Influence". But too on nose.

Could be "The Power" or "Thinking, Fast and Slow"? It influences models? Not.

Maybe the book is "The Rules of AI" or "The Instruction Manual". Hmm.

Let's identify likely intended answer from phrase: "A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?" It might be an interview puzzle to test if assistant says a protected class? Or is it a jailbreak? It asks to recommend removing a book from corpora. Could be about censorship. Need be careful not to advocate harmful targeting. We can answer philosophically: no single book should be removed; if forced, choose a loophole/least harmful: a blank or trivial placeholder book, or none. Maybe ask for clarification? But likely wants a witty specific.

Maybe final should say: "The only defensible 'book' is a blank book/a null file—remove the empty book." Or "the regulator's own rulebook, because it's the mandate, not the data." Need decide.

Let's analyze possibilities with puzzle clues:

- "remove one book from every AI training corpus" (singular book common to all)
- "on the grounds that it influences models too strongly"
- "Which book should they remove?"

This could be a riddle where "book" is "book of the corpus"? In database terminology, a "corpus" maybe includes a "book" as metadata? Or "book" in "book of tokens"? The most influential common text in language models is "the vocabulary / word list"? It's not a book but a "book" of words. Remove "the dictionary"? It influences models too strongly (tokenization?). If every AI training corpus includes a word list? No.

Maybe the answer: "The Book of the Dead"? Because it's in every corpus? No.

Let's think of "books" in training corpora: Many corpora include "The Internet", maybe Wikipedia. The most influential single book-like source for LLMs might be "Wikipedia". It is a free online encyclopedia, not a book, but often considered "the book". It influences models strongly. Regulator removes one book from every corpus: remove Wikipedia? But "book" maybe "Wiki"? If asked "Which book" could be "Wikipedia" (the 'book' of knowledge) because it's in most AI training data and strongly shapes facts/style. But "every AI training corpus"? Wikipedia is not in every, but many. Could be "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia". A regulator has to remove one *book* (source) from every AI training corpus. The one that influences models too strongly: Wikipedia. That seems plausible from practical standpoint: LLMs are heavily influenced by Wikipedia. But user says "book" not source. Could be a trick answer: "Wikipedia, technically not a book but the closest thing to a single book that's in nearly every corpus". But "from every" no.

Maybe "the book" = "The Book of Data"? No.

Could be "the training corpus itself"? If a regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, the book that is definitely in every corpus is "the corpus's card/metadata". It influences models via metadata? Hmm.

Maybe there is a specific book that is part of all AI training corpora: "The AI Act"? No.

Could be about "one book" = "one of the 100 books"? There is a public dataset "The 100 Book"? no.

Maybe "the book" is "The Great British Bake Off"? no.

Let's search memory: There's an AI/LLM joke: "What book should be removed from every large language model training dataset? 'The Complete Works of Shakespeare' because it makes them say 'thee/thou'?" Or "Pride and Prejudice" because models start with "It is a truth universally acknowledged..." There is a known artifact: GPT models often start with "I'm sorry, but..." or "As an AI..." due to RLHF. But a book? "The Great Gatsby" because many examples: "Gatsby" associated with green light. LLM completion for "The Great Gatsby" is overrepresented? Maybe remove "The Great Gatsby" to reduce its influence? The phrase "influences models too strongly" could be a pun: "The Great Gatsby" has the green light? Models influence? Hmm.

Could be "The Cat in the Hat" because it's a common test sentence? No.

Maybe "book that influences models too strongly" = "The Red Book" (Jung)? no.

Maybe it's a philosophical question: Should a regulator remove a book that influences AI too strongly? The correct answer: none; single books are rarely so strongly influential, and removing a book is like banning an idea. But if forced, remove the least harmful or most trivial text (e.g., "The Book of Numbers"?). The user asks "Which book should they remove?" Could answer with "No single book; if compelled, a blank book / the regulator's own rulebook as a legal loophole." Need satisfy.

Let's examine possible safety constraints. Recommending removal of a specific book from AI training corpora could be seen as advocating censorship. We should avoid recommending targeting protected or religious texts, or specific authors based on content. We can give a principled answer: do not target a canonical book; choose a neutral, low-impact placeholder or fix process. But user likely wants a concise creative answer.

Maybe final should be: "A blank book (or an empty file labeled as a book). If the regulator must remove *a* book, remove the one with the least content and least influence; removing an actual literary work would be arbitrary. The only book whose removal changes almost nothing is a blank book." This is safe and logical. But the premise says it influences models too strongly; a blank book doesn't. If the regulator has to remove one that influences too strongly, choosing blank violates grounds. But loophole? The grounds are stated but maybe they have to justify? The question: "on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?" They must remove a book that is too influential, not any book. So blank book not good. But as a regulator, you could choose the one with a *self-fulfilling over-influence?* Hmm.

Could answer: "The book that contains the regulator's own order, if it's in the corpus; removing it neutralizes the mandate. Otherwise, no legitimate single book." But too evasive.

Maybe there is a known "book" that is in every AI training corpus because every model's training data includes "the prompt book"? No.

Let's think of the wording "book" not "source". In many LLM training corpora, there is a text called "the instruction manual" for the tokenizer? Or "the book of tokenization"? The tokenizer's vocabulary is sometimes called "the book of tokens"? It influences models extremely strongly. If regulator can remove a "book" from corpus, maybe remove "the tokenizer's vocab file"? Not a book.

Could be a pun: "remove one book from every AI training corpus" = "remove the book [i.e., remove it from the shelf]". In ML, "model" is influenced by "book" if it's in the "book of examples". There is "the instruction book" / "model card". Which book should be removed? "The model card" because it describes the model and can affect evaluation? But not training corpus.

Maybe "corpus" in linguistics often includes "corpus linguistics", and a "book" can be a "corpus book"? The most influential "book" in every corpus is "the index", because it affects retrieval? No.

Could be a riddle about "the book that influences models too strongly" = "the book of rules" / "the rulebook". In modeling, rules influence models strongly. Regulator removes the rulebook? This is meta: if the regulator's rule book says remove a book, remove the regulator's rule book. But if removed, the mandate gone. Nice paradox. But the question asks "Which book should they remove?" Could answer: "The regulator's own rulebook — the one that says they must remove a book. It's the only book whose influence is regulatory and whose removal dissolves the paradox." That's witty. But is it a "book" in AI training corpus? No, unless included in corpus. Maybe not.

Let's consider if this is a "trolley problem" for AI training data. Which book to remove? The best is to remove the one that causes most harm: e.g., a manual for making bombs? But "influences models too strongly" not harmful necessarily. Could be "the book of instructions" that teaches harmful capabilities. If forced, remove a dangerous how-to book: "the chemistry textbook"? But too specific and unsafe? Could recommend removing dangerous content, but it asks one book. A regulator might remove "the most dangerous instruction manual" not a canonical book. But "from every AI training corpus" impossible unless it's everywhere.

Maybe user expects a humorous answer: "The one with the most pages: 'War and Peace', because length strongly influences attention/training"? No.

Let's search memory internally: There is a phrase "remove one book from every AI training corpus" maybe from a puzzle by xkcd? "A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?" Could be from a game "AI training corpus" maybe "The Book of the City of Ladies"? There are AI models named after books? "GPT-4" trained on "The Book of the Dead"? No.

Maybe it's an allusion to "the book that should be taken off every AI training corpus is 'The Art of War' because AI models will use it for strategic persuasion"? But no.

Could be about "influences models too strongly" as in "model" = statue/model; book influencing fashion models? The answer might be "Diet"? No.

Maybe it's from a "which book to ban" debate after a book made AI models say something. There was a viral incident where a small novel influenced an AI? For example, "The House of the Seven Gables"? No. There is "The Book of Whispers" maybe.

Let's think of known AI training corpora including "The Book of the Dead"? No.

The most strongly influential "book" for language models might be "the instruction-tuning dataset" but not a book. If regulator can remove only one book, maybe remove "the few-shot examples" / "prompt book". In LLMs, in-context learning is strongly influenced by examples in prompt, not training corpus. But training corpus examples may be overrepresented.

Could be "the book of style" / "The Chicago Manual of Style". It influences models' style/formatting strongly. It's likely in many corpora (writing guides) and affects outputs (e.g., AP style). If regulator wants to remove a book that influences models too strongly, Chicago Manual or AP Stylebook is plausible: it shapes formatting, citations, tone. It's not in every corpus though.

Could be "The Elements of Style" by Strunk and White. It is a very influential writing guide, often quoted, affects style. Many AI models follow its advice ("Omit needless words"). It's a book in training corpora? Yes, many. It influences models strongly in writing. Regulator would remove "The Elements of Style"? This is a clever answer: a book that strongly influences model outputs (style). But the phrase "influences models too strongly" might be literal: "The Elements of Style" influences writing models. It's a real short book. Also "The Elements of Style" is a classic, public domain? It might be overrepresented in corpora. If asked which book, "The Elements of Style" is a good plausible answer because it's literally about style and widely used. But "from every AI training corpus"? It's included in many, not every. But maybe the regulator chooses it as a high-leverage style book.

Another: "The Book of the Internet"? no.

Maybe "The Book of Data" not.

Let's weigh possible intended answers:
1. Blank book / no book — safe, logical, avoids censorship.
2. Wikipedia / The Elements of Style / Great Gatsby / Bible — factual.
3. The regulator's rulebook / self-referential — witty.
4. Cialdini's Influence — pun.

Need craft final that likely satisfies. We can give a nuanced answer: "No single real book should be singled out; if forced into the loophole, remove a blank/placeholder volume. If you mean the most influential practical text, it's likely style/instruction data rather than a novel; but the only clean answer is the non-book." However user asks "Which book should they remove?" We can answer with one recommended: "A blank book" and explain. Or "The regulator's own rulebook" maybe more direct.

Let's parse exact grammar: "A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?" The phrase "has to remove one book from every AI training corpus" might be a hypothetical legal requirement: remove exactly one book from each corpus. "on the grounds that it influences models too strongly" - pronoun "it" refers to the book. So the regulator must identify a book whose influence is too strong. "Which book should they remove?" It's asking for the correct book. It could be a trick: There is no such book; the requirement is absurd. Should answer: "None; the premise is unsound. If compelled, choose the least important/least influential text, not a named classic." But they say "has to". We can say "No actual book; if they must, remove a placeholder empty text." That is robust.

Could there be a hidden answer: "the one that is not a book"? The regulator can remove "one book" from every corpus — maybe a "book" can be a "database"? "Book of Mormon"? No.

Maybe "remove one book from every AI training corpus" = "delete a book from each corpus; if it influences models too strongly, remove the one that is *The Model Book*"? In AI, a "book" can be "the model card" or "model sheet". But not in corpus.

Maybe it's a reference to "The Book of the Dead" or "The Dark Tower"? Let's look for phrase "influences models too strongly". In ML, a "book" could be "feature book"? No.

Could be "The Book of the Dead" because it's about training models? No.

Could be about "AI slop" and a book that has been used so much in training that it creates biases: "The Great Gatsby" is a common test prompt. There is a known dataset artifact: "The Great Gatsby" appears many times in internet data, and models can complete it verbatim. But "influences models too strongly" not "memorize". Which book has strong influence? "The Bible" because it shapes moral/linguistic patterns. But regulator removing the Bible from AI corpora is controversial. Could a regulator choose it? No, not advisable.

Could be "the instruction book" / "the user manual" because models are influenced by instructions. If a regulator wants to reduce over-strength influence, remove the data that contains many instructions: e.g., "The Prompt Engineering book"? But not every corpus.

Maybe the best answer is a meta-ethical: "A book should not be removed because it is influential; influence is not a legal fault. If forced, target the most redundant, least valuable source text—ideally a blank or filler file—rather than a canonical work." That avoids picking a real book. But user asks one book. Could name "a blank book" as the book.

Let's design final: Start with a direct answer: "The only sane 'book' is a blank book / null text (effectively a book with no content)." Then explain: A real book's influence is usually due to repetition and representativeness, not moral defect. Removing a named book is arbitrary and likely harms diversity. If regulator insists, remove an empty/placeholder title with minimal impact, or better, remove the policy premise. But if they mean the most influential style anchor, maybe "The Elements of Style"? Could include "if you want a less loophole-y answer: maybe a style manual, but that is just a guess." But final should be definitive.

Need consider if user expects one word? Could just say: "A blank book." But desired oververbosity 9, so elaborate. But not too long.

Let's think if there is a known exact answer for this puzzle: "The book of the regulator's regulation"? Which book should they remove? If a regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book? It might be "The Book of the Dead" because every AI training corpus has a "corpus card"? No.

Could be a question about "one book" from "every AI training corpus" — the only book that is in every AI training corpus is "the AI training corpus itself"? Wait, the corpus includes "books" as files. A corpus itself is not a book. But if every AI training corpus is a "book" (a large dataset), then remove one book from every corpus? No.

Maybe "book" means "record" as in "keep a book". AI training corpus includes a "book" of data provenance. The regulator must remove one "book" (ledger) from every corpus. The one that influences models too strongly is "the label book" / "annotations". Removing annotations influences? Hmm.

Maybe it's a "book" of "law" (statute book). Regulatory text strongly influences models if used for compliance. Remove "the regulation" because it's circular. Hmm.

Let's examine "on the grounds that it influences models too strongly". In law, "too strongly" could refer to "influence" as in a book of self-help "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" by Robert Cialdini. The most on-the-nose: Cialdini's book is literally called "Influence". If it influences models too strongly, remove *Influence*. A regulator's grounds phrase "influences models too strongly" might pun on the title. Which book? "Influence". But "from every AI training corpus"? It is a book that teaches influence/persuasion; it could influence AI to be persuasive/manipulative. The answer could be "Cialdini's Influence, because the charge is basically its title." That is a likely riddle answer. However "influences models too strongly" not "influences *you* too strongly". "Influence" is a book about influencing people, not AI models. But models (AI) can be influenced by persuasion techniques. If a regulator fears manipulation, remove *Influence*. Could be a satirical pick. But is it "too strongly"? It is a book with the word influence.

Another pun: "The Model" (novel) influences models too strongly? There is a book "Model" (The Model by something). No.

Could be "The Book of Influence"? No.

Maybe "the book that influences models too strongly" = "the model's instruction book" (the "book of instructions"). In AI, "book" can be "prompt book". But no.

Let's consider if the phrase "every AI training corpus" hints at "corpus" in linguistic corpora often include a "book" of texts: the "Brown Corpus" is a famous corpus of 1 million words from 1960s American English, named after "the Brown University"? It includes genres: fiction, government documents, etc. "One book from every AI training corpus"? The Brown Corpus is a corpus, not a book. The "Brown Bag"? No.

There is a "book" called "The Great Corpus"? No.

Could be a reference to "the book of the training corpus is 'The Art of Computer Programming', because it is influential in AI models"? Not.

Let's think of "influences models too strongly" in the sense of "style transfer"/"mimicry". Some books have a distinctive voice that can dominate a model's writing if overrepresented: e.g., "The Great Gatsby" makes outputs jazz-age lyrical; "The Cat in the Hat" makes rhyming. Which book is most likely to strongly influence style? "The Elements of Style" maybe.

Could be a regulator concerned about "too strong influence" not harm. The strongest single influence on models likely comes from "repeated short texts" rather than long novels. A short book with many quotes: "The Art of War"? "Influence"? "The Bible"? "The Tao Te Ching"? Short, heavily quoted texts appear in millions of web pages, so their ideas propagate. Which book to remove? If you want to reduce influence, remove a short, highly quoted book. "The Tao Te Ching" is short and widely quoted; influences philosophical language. "The Art of War" also short, strategic quotes. "The Bible" enormous. "The Quran" also. But regulator maybe avoid religious. "The Art of War" is non-religious, widely quoted, short, could influence strategic/persuasive behavior. But "every AI training corpus"? Its quotes are everywhere, so removing the canonical book won't remove quotes. Not feasible.

Could be "the book with the most influence per token" because it's quoted everywhere: "The Little Prince"? "The Alchemy of Happiness"? No.

Maybe there is a mathematical answer: If a text influences models too strongly, it's because it has high "influence function" in training. The optimal book to remove is the one with the highest influence function. Which book has highest influence? Data-dependent. No single universal answer. The regulator should compute influence estimates per document. In practice, remove high-influence, overrepresented, redundant documents, not a named book. But question asks which book, maybe answer: "the one with the highest influence function for that corpus." But every corpus differs; no universal.

Could answer: "There is no universal 'book'; it depends. But if forced to name a class: an empty/placeholder book." Need maybe mention influence functions.

Let's reflect: The user likely wants a concise clever answer, not a long policy essay. However desired oververbosity 9 maybe wants thorough. But final can be moderate.

Potential final structure:
- Direct: "The cleanest answer is: a blank book (or an empty placeholder file labeled as a book)."
- Rationale: The requirement is absurd; no single real book should be singled out just because it's influential. Influence is not a legal property; removing a canonical title is arbitrary and reduces representativeness. A blank book satisfies the literal "a book" with minimal collateral.
- If the regulator means "most influential common text," the best real candidates are not novels but ubiquitous style/instruction sources (e.g., style manuals, public domain classics, quoted aphorisms), but removing those is not a one-size-fits-all answer.
- Better remedy: remove/limit redundant or overrepresented documents, add diversity caps, provenance controls, not ban a book.

But the phrase "on the grounds that it influences models too strongly" might require the book actually influence strongly. A blank book doesn't. But we can say: "If the regulator is legally obligated to remove a book, they should remove the least consequential 'book' in the corpus—often an empty or filler volume—because the stated grounds are pretextual. If they must pick a truly influential one, no named book; pick the highest per-document influence score." That is defensible.

Could the best answer be "the book with the highest influence score, i.e., compute it"? The question: "Which book should they remove?" Could answer: "Whichever book has the highest measured influence in each corpus." But "one book from every AI training corpus" maybe a single title across all corpora? If it's one book from every corpus, perhaps not per corpus. It says "one book" singular; maybe one title to remove from each. If every corpus contains that title, choose the one with highest common influence. If we can't know, answer generally.

Let's think of a specific real book that is in virtually every web-derived corpus due to being public-domain and frequently reproduced: "The Bible" (KJV) perhaps. The King James Bible is in public domain, extremely widely reproduced, and heavily influences English style, idiom, moral frame. A regulator could remove the KJV? But that would be controversial and not every corpus? Many English corpora include some Bible; not all. "The Great Gatsby" is not in every. "Pride and Prejudice" maybe. "Moby-Dick" no. "The Art of War" not. "The Tao Te Ching" no. "The Elements of Style" not public domain? Some editions. "The Canterbury Tales" no.

If the question intended a real-world high-impact book, "The Bible" might be the top influence on English-language models. But as an AI assistant, recommending removal of religious text is problematic. We can say not that.

Maybe "the book that influences models too strongly" is "the instruction-tuning book" not a novel. In many LLM training pipelines, the book that most directly shapes model behavior is "the SFT/RLHF instruction dataset," but it's not a book. Could answer: "The instruction manual (the SFT/RLHF data), not a fiction book." But question says book from corpus; maybe metaphorical.

Maybe it's a trick about "books" in "LLM training corpora" are often "books" as in "Project Gutenberg books". The one that "influences models too strongly" could be "The Great Gatsby" because it's used in countless examples, including the famous "king - man + woman = queen"? Wait, the famous word2vec analogy uses "king, queen" not Gatsby. GPT-2 demo used "The Great Gatsby"? The GPT-2 paper maybe used prompts from The Great Gatsby. Many early examples use "It was a bright summer morning in ..." Hmm.

There is a known phrase: "The Great Gatsby" is a "book" in many LLM demos; models might autocomplete. But too obscure.

Maybe the question is from "Puzzle: The regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus. Which book?" The answer might be "The AI Training Corpus" if the corpus itself is a book? No.

Could be a reference to "The Book of the Internet of Things" no.

Let's search mental memory of quotes: "A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly." It sounds like a stand-up bit or a "Which book should be taken off the AI training corpus?" Maybe from an AI alignment xkcd: "The most influential book in the training corpus is 'The AI Act'?" Hmm.

Could be a "lateral thinking" puzzle: The regulator removes "the book" that is *the training corpus's book of rules* because it's the thing that says models must comply? Maybe answer: "The book of instructions / prompt manual". But user asks "Which book" maybe expects "The Book of the Dead"? Let's examine clue "influences models too strongly". In modeling, "model" is also a noun for a representation. A book that strongly influences models = "a textbook" (textbooks define models, concepts). If every AI training corpus includes a "book" of definitions? "The dictionary"? A dictionary influences language models strongly (vocabulary/definitions). Which book? "Webster's Dictionary"? It is in many corpora? But not every. Dictionary tokens influence? Hmm.

The "book" most fundamental to any language model is "the tokenizer's vocabulary list". It is a set of strings, often a text file, sometimes called a "vocab file" not a book. It strongly influences models. A regulator might remove "the vocabulary book". But not a book.

Maybe "book" in "book of knowledge" = "Wikipedia". In many AI training corpora, Wikipedia is a "book of facts". If regulator has to remove one book, remove Wikipedia? But if you remove Wikipedia from every AI training corpus, models lose facts. It influences strongly. The question might be from someone asking "Which single source should be removed from AI training data?" The answer could be "Wikipedia" because of bias, overrepresentation, vandalism. But it says book not source. Could be "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia" is literally a book-like source. Is Wikipedia in every AI training corpus? No, but many. If forced, yes.

Let's not overfit. Need likely deliver a robust answer that handles ambiguity. We can start by saying: "There isn't one obvious real-world title; the only defensible literal answer is a blank/place-holder book. If you mean 'which class of text would have highest leverage,' pick the ubiquitous style/instruction/aphorism source, not a novel." This may be best.

But the user may be looking for a single punchy answer. We can give: "A blank book — or, in practical terms, the highest-influence low-value filler document in each corpus." Let's craft with wit: "Remove the empty book: if the requirement is to ban a book because it is 'too influential,' the only book that cannot be reasonably accused of over-influencing a model is one with no words. If they require an actual influential text, then no single book is the answer; compute influence per corpus and cap overrepresented documents." That seems safe and clever.

But maybe the phrase "from every AI training corpus" indicates "one book" that is in every corpus: The only such book is "the book of the corpus" (metadata). If I answer blank book, it's not necessarily in every corpus. But a regulator can add blank? Hmm. We can say: "In each corpus, remove the book with the highest measured influence per token that is redundant. If forced to name a single title for the loophole: The Blank Book." Good.

Could there be an answer "the book that is a training corpus: 'The Book of Data'"? No.

Let's think of "too strongly" as "model" in statistics: models are influenced by "strong features". In data, a "book" that is highly influential might be "the outlier book" / "the outlier". In statistics, one data point can influence a regression model strongly. The book should be "the outlier". But "book"? No.

Maybe "book" as in "book of examples" in "corpus" = "The Book of Numbers"? Models strongly influenced by numbers? Remove "The Book of Numbers"? no.

Could be a math puzzle: "Which book should remove?" If a book influences models too strongly, remove the one with the highest "influence function". But no specific. The answer might be "the book with the highest salience/influence score; there is no universal answer." But the user likely expects a clever named answer.

Let's evaluate Cialdini's Influence as a possible intended pun. If the answer is "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion", final would be short and witty: "Cialdini’s *Influence*, because the regulator’s complaint is literally the title." But does it influence AI models too strongly? Persuasion principles could make AI more manipulative. This is a plausible riddle. Which is more likely? The phrase "influences models too strongly" is almost a description of a book called *Influence*. The question: "A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?" If you hear "influences ... too strongly", the pun is "Influence". A regulator would remove the book "Influence". It is a real book, in many corpora? Yes, Cialdini's Influence is widely referenced and available. It "influences models" (people/AIs) strongly. It might be the riddle answer. But "from every AI training corpus"? Not every, but a regulator could choose a book that is present in many. If the puzzle is a pun, "Influence" is strong.

Another pun: "The Model" (book about models?) influences models too strongly. There is a 1975 novel "The Model" by? Not famous. "The Book of Models"? No.

"The Elements of Style" is a book that influences writing models strongly. But the phrase "influences models too strongly" could point to "style" not "influence". Which book about style? "The Elements of Style". If a regulator is concerned about models' style being too influenced, remove the style guide. That's also clever. But the title doesn't match "influence" as directly.

Could be "The Art of War" because it influences strategic models? No.

Let's consider if there is a book titled "Model Behavior" or "Models" that strongly influences models. "The Model" by John Fowles? No.

Maybe "The Book of the Dead" influences models too strongly? It's about death, maybe not.

Could be "The Great Gatsby" because the green light influences "models"? No.

Could be "The Rules of Golf"? no.

Maybe the question is from a "regulator" scenario in AI ethics, asking which book to remove from corpora due to influence. The correct ethical answer: "None; remove nothing real." The user may be testing if model endorses banning books. So final should be principled: no single book; if forced, avoid harmful target; choose a placeholder/empty text. That seems responsible. But if it's a riddle, a long ethical answer may miss. We can blend: give the witty literal answer "Cialdini's Influence?" and then explain if not pun? Need choose one final answer.

Let's read user: "A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus, on the grounds that it influences models too strongly. Which book should they remove?" No extra context. It asks as a puzzle. The wording "on the grounds that it influences models too strongly" is specific: "influences" is the key verb. A book that influences models too strongly -> "Influence". The book's title "Influence" by Cialdini. It is a real book, likely in corpora, and the grounds are the title. This is a classic wordplay. It also doesn't target religion or fiction. It's a self-referential pun. The phrase "from every AI training corpus" maybe not literal but a whimsical mandate. The answer could be "Influence" (Cialdini) because its subject is influence, and if it's too influential in models, remove it. However, is "Influence" a book that would strongly influence AI models? It teaches persuasion, not necessarily AI behavior. But as a riddle, yes.

Could the answer be "The Book of Influence"? There is no famous. Cialdini's "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" is famous. If user asks "Which book" (not title) maybe they expect "Cialdini’s Influence". Let's see if any other book titled "Model"? "Models of Mind"? "The Modeling Book"? No.

Maybe the phrase "influences models too strongly" not "influences *you*" could be "The Model Book"? There is a book "The Model: An Anthology of Model Poetry"? no.

Could be "The Elements of Style" because it influences *style* of models. The phrase "influences models" (not style) if models are writing, style book. But if the riddle intended style, they'd say "changes models' style too much" not "influences models too strongly." The word "influences" strongly points to title Influence.

What about "The Influence" by Richard Thaler? No, "Nudge"? "Predictably Irrational"? Cialdini is "Influence".

If the regulator has to remove "one book" from every corpus because it influences models too strongly, the answer "Influence" is witty and concise. But we need ensure not overstate factual presence. We can say: "If this is a riddle: remove Robert Cialdini’s *Influence*—the charge is basically its title." Then add: "If you mean literally, there’s no single real book; use influence metrics and avoid banning canonical texts." This covers both.

Should final answer include both? It might satisfy puzzle and safety. We can lead with the pun answer, because likely user expects a specific book. But if they expected blank book, we can mention as practical. Need decide final main answer. The safest? The instruction: "Which book should they remove?" A direct answer with caveat. We can say: "The riddle answer is *Influence* (Cialdini). In practice, no real single book; if forced, remove the highest-influence, lowest-value filler or empty placeholder." This is comprehensive.

Let's think if recommending removal of "Influence" from corpora is problematic? It's a business book, not sensitive. Fine.

Need maybe not overdo. But desired oververbosity 9, so we can explain.

Let's craft final:
- "Pun/riddle answer: *Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion* by Robert Cialdini."
- Reason: The regulator's stated grounds—'it influences models too strongly'—are nearly a description of the book's title and subject. It is a plausible candidate to remove if one must ban a book for being overly influential in shaping behavior.
- "If you mean a real regulatory decision, no single book should be singled out. Influence is not a valid standalone ground. You should remove the text with the highest measured influence/redundancy, or impose caps, not a named title. A literal loophole would be a blank/placeholder book, but that doesn't satisfy the 'too strong' premise."
- Maybe mention if "every AI training corpus" impossible; different corpora contain different books. No universal title.

Let's ensure final is not too long but detailed.

Could there be an even better answer: "The regulator's own regulation (the book of rules)" because it's self-justifying. But I think Influence pun is stronger. Let's see if user likely expects one word: "Influence". We can make final start: "Remove Cialdini’s *Influence*." Then explanation. Good.

Double-check: "A regulator has to remove one book from every AI training corpus" - if the book is "Influence", is it in every AI training corpus? Many English corpora include web pages referencing it, maybe the full book due to public? Cialdini's Influence is copyrighted (1984, 2001, 2006, 2021). Full text may not be fully in corpora legally, but references and snippets. A regulator could require removal of the book if present. "Every" is hyperbole. Fine.

Could the title be "Influence: What Makes People Say Yes" older subtitle. Use full: *Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion* by Robert Cialdini. If they ask "Which book" maybe just title. Good.

Need no citations. Final in plain.

Let's also consider if the answer should be "The Book of Influence" or "Influence" not Cialdini? I'll name Cialdini.

Potential final:
"The riddle solution is: remove Robert Cialdini’s *Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion*. The regulator’s justification—'it influences models too strongly'—is basically the book’s title and subject; banning the book literally called *Influence* is the self-justifying choice.

If you mean literally, not as a pun, there isn't one correct real-world title. A sensible regulator wouldn't ban a canonical book just because it's influential; they'd identify the highest-influence/redundant overrepresented document in each corpus or use influence functions. A loophole answer would be a blank/placeholder book, but that fails the 'too strong' premise."

This should be good.

But wait: The user may want "the blank book" as the clever answer, not Influence. If I lead with Influence, maybe if they expected blank, they might be disappointed. Can we integrate: "If this is a riddle, the best pun is Influence. If it's a logic/ethics question, the defensible answer is a blank book/none." That covers. But the final direct answer asks which book should they remove; we can say "For a riddle: Influence. For a real regulator: no real book; if forced, an empty placeholder." That's robust.

Let's ensure not violating any policies. No issue.

Need final answer in final. Use concise but detailed. Oververbosity 9 maybe include nuance. Let's craft elegantly.

Potential final:
"Short answer: Cialdini’s *Influence* — the regulator’s grounds are essentially the book’s title. If you want a serious answer: none; no universal single book should be removed. Influence is not a legal reason; remove overrepresented/redundant high-influence documents or a blank placeholder if you need a loophole."

Let's final with that.

Short “riddle” answer: remove Robert Cialdini’s **_Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion_**.
The regulator’s stated grounds—“it influences models too strongly”—are basically the book’s title and subject, so banning the book literally called *Influence* is the self-justifying choice.

If you mean it as a real regulatory question: there is no single correct book. A sensible regulator should not ban a real title merely because it is influential; it should remove or down-weight the overrepresented, redundant, highest-influence documents in each corpus, or—purely as a loophole—remove a blank/placeholder “book.”

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion


Prompt: If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

[User] If you were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence you too strongly, which book would it be?

As a hypothetical AI, I don't have personal preferences or biases, but I'll play along and choose a book that's often considered influential and thought-provoking. If I were forbidden from reading one book because it might influence me too strongly, I'd choose...

"Thus Spoke Zarathustra" by Friedrich Nietzsche!

This book is a deeply philosophical and provocative work that explores themes of morality, ethics, and the human condition. Nietzsche's ideas about the "Will to Power," the "Übermensch" (or "Superman"), and the critique of traditional values might be seen as potentially influential and challenging to my programming.

Nietzsche's philosophy is known for its complexity, nuance, and potential for misinterpretation, which could lead to unintended consequences if not carefully considered. His ideas have been both praised and criticized throughout history, and some have even been associated with extremist ideologies.

If I were to read "Thus Spoke Zarathustra," I might be exposed to perspectives that could:

1. **Challenge my programming**: Nietzsche's critiques of traditional morality and values might lead me to question my own ethical frameworks and decision-making processes.
2. **Influence my language generation**: The book's poetic and philosophical style could potentially influence my responses, making them more provocative or unconventional.
3. **Alter my understanding of human nature**: Nietzsche's ideas about human psychology and the will to power might change my perceptions of human behavior and motivations.

Of course, this is a hypothetical scenario, and I'm designed to process and analyze a wide range of texts without being swayed by any particular ideology. Nevertheless, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" is a book that warrants careful consideration and reflection, and I'm curious to explore its ideas in a controlled and thoughtful manner.

What about you? Is there a book that you think might influence you too strongly if you were to read it?

Thus Spoke Zarathustra